Michael F Brinkley1, Juan C Ramirez-Giraldo2, Ehsan Samei3, Daniel J Frush4, Kingshuk Roy Choudhury5, Joshua M Wilson3, Olav I Christianson3, Donald P Frush5. 1. Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. michael.brinkley@dm.duke.edu. 2. Siemens Healthcare, Malvern, USA. 3. Clinical Imaging Physics Group, Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 4. Medical Physics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, 27710, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, Duke University School of Medicine, DUMC Box 3808, Durham, NC, 27710, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of automatic tube potential selection (ATPS) on radiation dose, image quality, and lesion detectability in paediatric abdominopelvic CT and CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: A paediatric modular phantom with contrast inserts was examined with routine pitch (1.4) and high pitch (3.0) using a standard abdominopelvic protocol with fixed 120 kVp, and ATPS with variable kVp in non-contrast, contrast-enhanced, and CTA mode. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and lesion detectability index (d') were compared between the standard protocol and ATPS examinations. RESULTS: CTDIvol was reduced in all routine pitch ATPS examinations, with dose reductions of 27-52 % in CTA mode (P < 0.0001), 15-33 % in contrast-enhanced mode (P = 0.0003) and 8-14 % in non-contrast mode (P = 0.03). Iodine and soft tissue insert CNR and d' were improved or maintained in all ATPS examinations. kVp and dose were reduced in 25 % of high pitch ATPS examinations and in none of the full phantom examinations obtained after a single full phantom localizer. CONCLUSIONS: ATPS reduces radiation dose while maintaining image quality and lesion detectability in routine pitch paediatric abdominopelvic CT and CTA, but technical factors such as pitch and imaging range must be considered to optimize ATPS benefits. KEY POINTS: ATPS automatically individualizes CT scan technique for each patient. ATPS lowers radiation dose in routine pitch pediatric abdominopelvic CT and CTA. There is no loss of image quality or lesion detectability with ATPS. Pitch and scan range impact the effectiveness of ATPS dose reduction.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of automatic tube potential selection (ATPS) on radiation dose, image quality, and lesion detectability in paediatric abdominopelvic CT and CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: A paediatric modular phantom with contrast inserts was examined with routine pitch (1.4) and high pitch (3.0) using a standard abdominopelvic protocol with fixed 120 kVp, and ATPS with variable kVp in non-contrast, contrast-enhanced, and CTA mode. The volume CT dose index (CTDIvol), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and lesion detectability index (d') were compared between the standard protocol and ATPS examinations. RESULTS: CTDIvol was reduced in all routine pitch ATPS examinations, with dose reductions of 27-52 % in CTA mode (P < 0.0001), 15-33 % in contrast-enhanced mode (P = 0.0003) and 8-14 % in non-contrast mode (P = 0.03). Iodine and soft tissue insert CNR and d' were improved or maintained in all ATPS examinations. kVp and dose were reduced in 25 % of high pitch ATPS examinations and in none of the full phantom examinations obtained after a single full phantom localizer. CONCLUSIONS:ATPS reduces radiation dose while maintaining image quality and lesion detectability in routine pitch paediatric abdominopelvic CT and CTA, but technical factors such as pitch and imaging range must be considered to optimize ATPS benefits. KEY POINTS: ATPS automatically individualizes CT scan technique for each patient. ATPS lowers radiation dose in routine pitch pediatric abdominopelvic CT and CTA. There is no loss of image quality or lesion detectability with ATPS. Pitch and scan range impact the effectiveness of ATPS dose reduction.
Authors: S T Schindera; A Winklehner; H Alkadhi; R Goetti; M Fischer; R Gnannt; Z Szucs-Farkas Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Caroline Mayer; Mathias Meyer; Christian Fink; Bernhard Schmidt; Martin Sedlmair; Stefan O Schoenberg; Thomas Henzler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marilyn Joy Siegel; Juan Carlos Ramirez-Giraldo; Charles Hildebolt; David Bradley; Bernhard Schmidt Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Jan-Erik Scholtz; Julian L Wichmann; Kristina Hüsers; Moritz H Albrecht; Martin Beeres; Ralf W Bauer; Thomas J Vogl; Boris Bodelle Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jacinta E Browne; Michael R Bruesewitz; Vrieze Thomas; Kristen B Thomas; Nathan C Hull; Cynthia H McCollough; Lifeng Yu Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2020-12-18 Impact factor: 2.102